The District of Columbia federal appeals court has given District Judge Emmet Sullivan 10 days to respond after former Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn appealed to the higher court for an intervention, alleging that Sullivan is breaking rules and precedent in Flynns case.
In its May 21 order, the higher court also invited the government “to respond in its discretion within the same ten-day period.”
The case is being handled by a three-judge panel of Karen Henderson, a G. W. Bush appointee; Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee; and Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee.
Flynn, a former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency and former national security adviser to President Donald Trump, pleaded guilty in 2017 to one count of lying during an FBI interview. In January, the retired Army three-star general disavowed the plea and asked the court to allow him to withdraw it.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) moved to drop Flynns case on May 7, saying the FBI interview wasnt based on a properly predicated investigation and “seems to have been undertaken only to elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn.”
Sullivan, however, has so far refused to affirm the dismissal and has instead laid out a schedule that would prolong the case for possibly months to come. Hes appointed former federal Judge John Gleeson as an amicus curiae (Friend of Court) “to present arguments in opposition to the governments Motion to Dismiss,” as well as to “address” whether the court should make the defense explain why “Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury.”
Hes also signaled he may allow more amici to join the case.
Flynns lawyers, led by former Texas prosecutor Sidney Powell, asked the higher court on May 19 to order Sullivan to accept the case dismissal, cancel the Gleeson appointment, and assign the case to another judge.
Shes argued that, based on precedent, judges only have a “ministerial” role to affirm the prosecutors motion to dismiss, as its solely the power of the executive branch, not the judiciary, to prosecute or not to prosecute.
Powell further argues that Sullivan is barred from appointing amici because process rules only delineate that option in civil cases and make no mention of it in criminal ones.
Sullivans reference to contempt for perjury likely refers to Flynns reiterating his guilty plea before the judge in 2018. Flynn said he only did so because his lawyers urged him to and because he was coerced into making the plea by the prosecutors threat to charge his son.
“The district judge in this case has abandoned any pretense of being an objective umpire—going as far as to suggest that a criminal defendant who succRead More From Source